CORRESPONDENCE

Southland Times, Issue 19098, 16 November 1923, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE

Letters must be written In ink and on one ■ide of the paper. Unless a signature, not necessarily for publication, accompanies a letter as a guarantee of good faith it will not be considered. An asterisk attached to the signature to a published letter denotes that some portion has been deleted by the Editor, a right which Is exercised in Questions of public policy, libel, good taste and | fair play. DAIRY CONTROL AND REPRESENTATION. To the Editor. Sir, —Per medium of your valuable paper I see that a meeting of dairymen is called to be held on November 17 to discuss the matter of a representative on the Board. I hope, Sir, that the exemptions of contracts under this Bill will also receive the copsideration that it so urgently requires. The Agricultural Committee of the House after giving this momentous mattee their serious attention and realising the danger and injustice to the small co-operative companies decided to recommend the House to revert to the June, 1922, limit. In spite of this, the Minister of Agriculture who stated that he had promised the extensio'n to October, 1930, asked that the Bill be passed to honour his promise, succeeded, and had his way. How about those who supported the Bill on the understanding equal rights for all? Evidently political promises take precedence over political principles. It is very nice to advise and plead for unanimity, but the present time still finds business conducted on the basis of business principles, not sentiment, and we should insist that our rights are not placed at the mercy of anyone. We had a right to a definite Southland representative; we had a right to vote for him and not be forced into voting and interfering with the voting of the other South Island provinces, whose representatives’ qualifications ninety-five per cent, of us are as totally ignorant of as people of these provinces are of ours. To make this perfectly plain, the people of Taranaki in Mr Forsyth’s district are opposed to the Bill and likewise to him, yet if the North Island voters place him on the board, Taranaki will be represented in opposition to her desires. I am, etc., DAIRYMAN. To the Editor. Sir, —Mr Neiderer writes that there is the same wrangling over the personnel of the prospective members of the Board as there was over the D.C.B. I quite agree with him there; because having gained my point which was the calling of a producers’ meeting I do not intend to carry this controversy further. But is there not justification for this wrangle. At the meeting held in Dunedin on November 8, Mr Fleming, of Otokia, asked Mr Bryant, Henley, (both of them members of the Dairy Council), why he was not notified about the last council meeting. Mr Bryant replied, that the reason why Messrs Fleming and Bowmar were not advised of the meeting was because they were known to be antagonistic to the Pool. Therefore, Sir, they were not wanted. Now, let us hope that the four Southland members will be equal to the occasion and on Saturday give the farmers present their explanation. Also, let us go along with our minds made up to pick the most capable man for the job whether he be a farmer, manager of a proprietorial concern or one of the so-called Crescent-ring-men, once the man is finally chosen and, Sir, what the man has or has not done to forward the passing of the D.C.B. should not enter into the question, neither should his views on the subject be a guide, there being too much at stake in this thing. The living of many depends upon the working of the board. If it is a failure it spells financial ruin for many. I, for one, intend to abide by the decision arrived at, and before finishing off let me inform Mr Neiderer that the successful business man is born not made. The training that he gets only brings out what is in him and no amount of training or experience will make a naturally poor man a good business man. I am, etc., JOHN BOURCHIER. To the Editor. Sir, —Mr Bourchier is an encylopaedia of dairying matters, but he has the habit of letting his pen run away with him. Take the candidates in favour of Control. Mr Bourchier is satisfied with Mr Thacker, but considers Mr Agar would be better. Why? Because Mr Agar is bitterly opposed to Control. In regard to Mr Fisher, Southland dairymen know “who is who;” but Mr Bourchier prefers Mr Mcßride because Mr McBride is also an opponent of Control. If he is in favour, as Mr Bourchier suggests, then he has ifiade a remarkable twist lately. In regard to the Otago Control nominee, Mr Bourchier says Mr Waite is an exseparator, ex-sheep farmer, now dairyman. Well, I know, personally, that 30 years ago Mr W T aite was milking cows and taking round the milk. I also know that when he was at the Otago Daily Times Office in Dunedin, he milked cows before he went to work and for the last ten years has been supplying cream to a factory. Now, he is milking 50 cows for the factory. If he is not a producer, who is? And Mr Bourchier, says he is a failure as a business mah! In what has he failed? He established the Co-op. Dairy Co. of Otago last year, and it is now handling more butter-fat than any other concern in the province. Of this company he is chairman. It is his success that is making his opponents so bitter. Mr Waite is a good sample of a promising young New Zealander. As to “Dairyman’s” letter about contracts. This is a most obvious attempt to draw a red herring across the track. Any honest legislation must make provision for existing contracts. Every member of Par v liament requested that this should be done. And the big Co-op. of Auckland does not produce one-third of the Dominion output. “Dairyman’s” informant did not post him in all the facts. Any contract made before the date specified by Parliament must be respected in a British community. As a matter of fact one candidate that everybody wants to see on the board is Mr Claude Motion, chairman of directors of the N.Z. Co-op. Company. The Dairy Farmers’ Union has distinctly said that it wants Mr Motion elected, and it also said that it will never think of opposing Messrs Fisher, Waite and Thacker, for it wants “Control” candidates on the board, not opposing men like Messrs McBride, Agar and Lee. These people were the bitter opponents to the Bill, and are seeking to woo the electors of the South Island, but the wise dariymen can see through their little game, even as the same wise dairymen can realise what is the motive behind the letter signed "Dairyman.” Everyone not in sympathy with vested interests will vote for the candidates supported by the Dairy Council and the N.Z. Farmers’ Union. I am, etc., COW COCKIE. [The point made by “Dairyman” was that the specified time was changed from 1922 to 1923 and that the N.Z. Co.-op. Dairy Co. while the proposal was before Parliament extended its control so that it would continue to 1930. This matter was referred to in. the House and is reported in Hansard.—Ed. S.T.] THE DEVIL’S POOL. To the Editor. Sir, —I cannot understand how a presumably intelligent’ man like Mr Webb could call your very able and to the point leader, “rubbish.” While our citizens are like that, we’ll never get ahead. Why have we no facilities for learning to swim ? It is a great reproach to this good little town. I witnessed the incident mentioned in your second article —regarding the very narrow escape from drowning of a girl last season, —and upon remarking to a bystander how plucky and resourceful the rescuer (also a girl) was, learnt that she had been properly taught, swixnmin® experienced male

teacher while at ladies’ school in Dunedin, swimming being a compulsory subject. Why have not our boys and girls the same privilege? It is a shame and a reproach to this town that these poor young souls have to risk, and so often lose, their valuable young lives, in. that dangerous Devil’s Pool, in their attempt to learn what we most assuredly should have them all taught, to be good swimmers. You are. to be commended, Sir, for your outspoken articles.—l am, etc., SWIMMER.